This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.

Dismiss

Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?

You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.

I love how the article mentions that this is "...the latest in a long line of embarrassing incidents or accidents to hit the company" and then goes on to list bird strikes, bomb threats and unruly passengers. How the hell are any of those JetBlue's fault?

I saw that and the heck of it is, the only thing that even came close to tagging them was that Pilot going ballistic out over TX and no one could have ever predicted that. Even if there hadn't been another pilot on board to help, the FO would have got it down OK. He would have been busy as all getout but it was his life too.lol

on the bus the overweight landing checks are easy. They download the data from the computer, if its within tolerances the logbook is signed off and the plane returned to service. Dont know what was going on in the cockpit, but holding for hours with multiple hydraulic failures seems excessive.

spatr, my thoughts exactly... my best friend is a Bus Captain and said the exact same thing, land immediately and download the data. I'm not one to "armchair" or second guess anyone but that's just my .02 and coming from my buddy, I would have to agree.

Regardless of the details, this was not an "emergency landing"*. The media is STILL staffed by idiots who want to make every story as sensationalistic as possible...any landing that isn't routine automatically gets called (breathlessly in spoken reports) an emergency.

*which is, according to FAA, NTSB and every intelligent pilot I know, one that must be made immediately or as soon as feasible due to continued flight being impossible.

Karl, you are so correct.There is training & procedure for so much "STUFF HAPPENS" and a good pilot falls back on that as part of the job. In the process of all the media hype, somebody(Airline/Pilot/Plane)winds up with a bad rap, and the old saying of "1 Oh Sh&* will wipe out 10 atta boys" comes into play.

Yes, but would not an inspection be better than an accident investigation if things had gone more sour. He had hold of it, but from what I can read from the passenger reports, it sounds like barely. Does not seem like a good thing to me.

If the captain decided he was "barely" in control I doubt he would have circled at all. What a passenger thinks is out of control and what an ATP who actually knows what he's doing thinks is out of control are two dramatically different things. On a typical flight in a mainline jet you can scarcely tell you're flying until you hit a bit of turbulence, so actually feeling the pilot flying the plane is a new experience for most passengers.

Like landing in 35G50KT in a CRJ... they tend to forget about being gentle and just dump the SOB on the runway so hard a layman might think the gear is going to collapse.

Well, all these comments are good and raise some very good questions, but the one factor that is not in anything published is the fact THAT WE WEREN'T IN THE COCKPIT. Hopefully the JB hierarchy will ask some of the same questions.

Reflect a little bit on the JBU aircraft that had the landing gear issue over KLGB and had to divert to KLAX a couple of years ago. It circled SLI for a while because the A320 series do not have the ability to dump fuel. So for them to be able to land safely without going through the aforementioned inspections, they had to burn the fuel off. That's what happened with the KLAX incident, and what had to happen here.

Money wasn't the problem here; the course of action wasn't just to get them down, but get them down SAFELY. Without doing that, you would have had another UAL232, coming in too heavy, too fast, and blowing up over Eastern and Sunset, and possibly going into George Burns and Gracie Allen's graves, plus the businesses there (KLAS was landing south and east that day (the 19s and 7s were in use).

Well, everybody most often talks about dumping fuel in order to get down on weight. Oft overlooked is that THE LESS FUEL, HOPEFULLY LESS FIRE if things do go bad. Even landing light, there could still be a fire but hopefully a smaller one you might have a chance of getting out of rather than instantly fried like a crispy critter, if it was a total fireball. In spite of all that may be said about the airlines and their penchant for profits, the SAFETY factor is still in the equation.

The money thing is kind of silly here... like there's a monthly P&L report on the front cover of the QRH or something. Wouldn't the most profit-hungry approach be to damn the torpedoes and land with all the fuel you can so you can use it another day?

I haven't seen any comments considering EPA or other "Green" regulations concerning dumping a bunch of pounds or gallons of high test heating oil. A 500 to 1000 gallon "oil spill" on land would result in a trip to Coast Guard HQ,since the storm sewer systems are "navigable waterways" a hearin and a stiff fine prescried by Congress. Dumping fuel is by definition a spill and is avoidable, as silly as that sounds. There is no consideration in the law for the safety of people or equipment.The Euorepons have taken Green to high levels and in some cases the seem to value a tree over a human life. Just something to think about.

We don't know what all happened, and we won't know for a long time. However, my question with what I know at this point is: What was the benefit of holding for over three hours with a declared emergency and multiple hydraulic failures, as opposed to proceeding towards the destination with the same emergency and failures? I'm not familiar with the Airbus 320 systems, but I suspect that turns in holding require substantially more hydraulic system activity than straight and level flight. If an emergency existed, required inspections due to an overweight landing should not even be a consideration in making the decision to land. Land as soon as safely possible. Worry about the inspections after you and the other 154 on board are safely on the ground. Is it possible that the controllability of the aircraft was in question enough to warrant 3 hours of holding (which from the track appears to be very under control after about the 6th turn) vs. landing with substantial fuel on board?

NY Times is far more reputable than NY Post. But the question is relevant - did any US media outside of the greater Las Vegas area run with this? I listen to the all-news station on my 90-minute drive to work (which happened to coincide with the time Daily Mail first reported the story), and I heard nothing about it.

Well, it's like I said yesterday, WE WEREN'T IN THE COCKPIT, but obviously he had his hands full. Like somebody said in another comment here though, he got out there, into a little orbit to assess everything, ran the checklist as he was supposed to and even recovered one system, not to mention that he landed safely and all walked away. The crew performed as they were trained to do and while out of the ordinary, not something totally unfamiliar. The PAX should have been very thankful rather than B&G like they were.

Could any airbus a320 series pilots tell me if the a320 has an alternate source of braking or an electrical back up system for the spoilers? And how much runway the plane would have needed for the planes weight after pilots knew something was wrong, assuming flaps 2 or 3 set for takeoff to JFk.

Braking would be done via the parking brake handle, flaps/slats would work, 1 spoiler pane each wing. At the likely wt the plane would need about 10000' of runway. If the yellow system came back, everything would be normal.

Good morning. There was another article yesterday, posted under NEW SQUAWKS talking more about the hydraulics rather than the lack of fuel dump. Don't know where it came from but they said that the yellow was recovered after they ran the checklist but had it not been, then landing would have been as you say, long runway, 1 spoiler each side, manual gear drop down and no nosewheel or reverse thrust, using Emergency braking. All this came from a QRF somewhere. A whole lot of stuff not really out of the ordinary. Stuff will break on anything and have to be dealt with. This just happens to be a Bus and everybody has their guns drawn.LOL Somebody up above here said that the Bus checklist said to get down ASAP but as I have said in other places, WE WEREN'T THERE.

"CAREERING through the skies". You have to remember that this was the Daily Mail. As was stated in the other story, to the media, if it's not routine, it's an Emergency, maybe not to the crew as they are trained for "Sh%^ Happens". Media is not.

looking through my 320 QRH... The loss of the main hyd systems (green+yellow) would necessitate a landing distance of a little over 10000' at 160,000#. The remaining system (blue) would power flaps, ailerons, rudder, elevator, 1 spoiler panel on each wing. Gear would be manually lowered, no nosewheel steering, no reversers,and would need to use emergency braking. Some of the flight control "protections" would be lost, but the flight controls would be working but with different logic. From what I gather the green system failed because of a loss of fluid and the yellow system overheated. I know in the checklist it says that if you wait for the overheat to dissipate, you can recover the system (presumably until it overheats again). Since I wasnt in the cockpit I dont know how busy they were and why they did what they did. Since they got it down and stopped and the worst injury was airsickness I think they did ok. Of course the FAA report will be the ultimate determiner of their actions.

Well, not sure what they landed on but 7/25 R or L at KLAS would have had that and more. It did say they lost green & yellow and then recovered yellow. Now that pretty much happened on the front end of all this and they were up there another 3-4 hours burning fuel and no more failure, so they apparently had yellow and blue systems working.

Must not have been too long. As they took there little orbit position, somewhere in the story or article it says they ran their checklists and recovered the yellow, so it must have been on the front end of things

Hey Guys,I'm not a professional flyer nor do I have the skills to be one. Still an aircraft "lurching from side to side" and "going into steep turns" with the pilot determining it an "emergency" is good enough for me to call it an "emergency landing."Relax a little afore you pick on us non-professionals.

As a current airbus captain I agree with the post that four hours to burn off fuel is ridiculous. With two hydraulic failures you stabilize the aircraft configuration then plan on landing as soon as possible on the longest runway available which in Vegas is 14000. Landing performance is about 11000 so this is not a factor. If winds were a consideration for landing then head to LAX in 45 minutes and land on the 12000' runway.

If a flight has a problem, flight ops and maintenance control are always involved. As a long time heavy jet line mechanic, I have always supported the Captain. He is the person that has to make the call. No one can do that for for him.

I guess the headline "Thousands of airliners land safely and passengers arrived at their destinations safe and comfortable" still doesn't sell news papers or tempt you to tune in to the TV news. As long as willingly ignorant people read papers the practice will continue. There is no penalty for poor reporting. Buy a parakeet and use the paper for it's logical end.

Also to add, "The Aviation Herald however learned on Jun 20th that the green hydraulic system had been lost followed by an overheat indication of the yellow hydraulic system prompting the crew to report the failure of two hydraulic systems. The crew actioned the relevant checklists and were able to recover the yellow hydraulic system." http://avherald.com/h?article=45165c68&opt=0

Captain's call. Some would "land as soon as possible". Other's would take a more moderate stance and burn fuel. The aircraft would fly all day with no hydraulics or on a backup system. I never flew the bus but the land ASAP (heavy or not) would certainly apply with an engine failure. I don't know what JB's checklist says. Remember, this was not a flight control problem like UAL232. That aircraft could NOT be flown without hydraulics. The 320 probably had limited braking and no nosewheel steering. The gear freefalls. They probably had no spoilers, leading edge slats or flaps. This would make for a REALLY high final approach speed with full fuel. They did a good job.

According to the picture, the flaps were down, not sure if this was the exact plane. It said he/she lost his hydraulics after take off so he must have at least flaps 2 or 3 assuming it was loaded with 7 hours of fuel and a full flight(which it always is LOL), so he could have had flaps/slates therefore reducing the A/Cs approach speed. As for spoilers, they could have been armed or do they have an electrical backup system? Very surprised a sophisticated a320 wouldn't have a plan B on such things as spoilers or brakes. They still had reversed thrust and a headwind to help

757 don't as MTOW and max landing weight are so close. Above that it's an option depending on climb rate and all, but getting pretty much standard on them and it's on all heavies. FAA used to have it at 105%(landing vs. MTOW) but they changed it several years ago, I forget the rule# but the started looking at climb out and approach speeds for a lost engine. It really started getting trashy when P&W started beefing up engines and with the bigger twins. I really think this fuel dump thing has caught a lot of folks off guard here based on some of these comments.

What is really funny is that regardless of the story, this started out with a question about not being able to dump fuel from an A320, and 51 comments later it gravitates away from that quickly to a discussion of the hydraulics.LOL

This was posted yesterday, and already generated over 50 comments. The other story was just a highlight about not being able to dump fuel. I thin it is already taken down off the page. You can find it under Popular Squawks(week)

What surprises me is they stayed aloft for so long with FAILED hydraulics. Seems you would want to get down ASAP. Especially since it was dancing through the skies. So what if your heavy. Seems an emergency over-rides the need to stay up to stay light.

They still had 2 aux electric pumps that each could pressurize the whole system, so I wouldn't describe their situation as "FAILED hydraulics". With a redundant set of pumps still working, why risk a heavy landing and damage to more systems? Unless they were down to 1 pump, there isn't an imminent danger. The dailymail loves to inject hyperbole into their stories, keep that in mind, so I don't believe it was ever "out of control" either.

Somewhere in here, it said they lost the Yellow and Green, and via the checklist, recovered the Yellow. That still left them one as I believe the AB has 3 systems. That's in here somewhere, not in the story but one of these links I think.

System over heating does not equate to the loss of a pump. If there was oil loss causing the heat, pressurizing the hydraulic lines would promote more oil loss. I don't know where the failure was, but if there was a hole in a line it would leak some more. How redundant are the systems? I know nothing about Airbus and this article doesn't even hint at enough information to make a good guess. Evidently letting things rest brought the yellow system back up and the pilots were able to keep things cool enough to function. I've gotten better information from a dump truck driver than was written here.

Mark: agreee 100%. A day or 2 after this started over an inquiry about not being able to dump fuel, there was an article on the same happening that showed up under "NEW SQUAWKS" that was more toward the hydraulic failure and that is where the more detail on the hydraulic came from, but it never made it out here to the main page. I don't know if it is still back in the bowels or not. All I know is this. I flew 35 years, for a private company up here on everything from a King Air, 707, and a 757. They were not line aircraft, but parked in the same hangars, maintained by the same folks and flown by the same crews, and in spite of everything, stuff did break and you train to handle that stuff. There are 121 comments on here, with most of them trying to second guess the PIC, but we weren't there, he got them down and they all walked off. That's what's important.

As for the original thread, fuel dumping would be considered an "oil spill" by any of the Water Resources administrations. As I said in an earlier post, even the storm drain systems in Maryland, DC, Delaware, Virginia... are considered navigable water ways for the purpose of the law. 20,000# of high test heating oil is near about 3,000 gallons and would be considered 'a major spill". It wouldn't matter that it was scattered over 10 miles. And by congressional law, someone has to be fined. EPA hates everybody equally

A good friend of mine had this happen on United a couple years ago out of Dulles for SFO. Again, a double hydraulic failure on take-off, a couple of hours of trying to get control of the plane while circling to burn fuel, and a pretty scary landing in the crash position.

It turns out that on the 320 if you lose a hydraulic system, you also lose what it's hydraulicking -- there are no redundancies. Redundancy is gained, on this platform, by splitting the systems. So lose one hydraulic, and half your aileron control goes away. The "redundancy" is that the other half supposedly still works. Lose two, and you have a less-than-easy-to-control airplane. Somewhere on the net is a long presentation about all this; I forget where right off.

It is a testament to the pilots who can control a 320 when it becomes crippled like this. Probably some of the time (as in the UA case) spent circling is learning how to precisely control the plane using differential thrust and whatever parts of the system you're left with.

There are no redundancies?? The A320 has triple-redundant hydraulics, with servo-controlled fly by wire hydraulic actuators, they go into 'bypass' mode when hydraulics fail in a particular system. A single actuator alone is sized to maintain control of a surface even if a paired actuator fails.

The aircraft lost two systems, it has 3 so one system was surviving, each provide redundancy for the primary flight controls. What usually becomes problematic if you lose landing gear and nosewheel steering, but landing gear can free-fall without hydraulics, and nosewheel steering is un-necessary so long as you have rudder authority.

The A320, systems wise, is actually very robust. I say well done to the systems engineers who designed the hydraulics.

Say I build a car's braking system with 4 separate hydraulic systems, one per wheel. Each has its own master cylinder/piston and connects only to the brake shoe on a given wheel. Now let's say I pop a hole in 3 of the 4 brake lines. Yes, I have "redundancy" because I still have one brake shoe slowing the car down.

But I don't have "redundancy" in the sense that the one remaining hydraulic system pushes on all 4 brake shoes.

That's my point about the 320. You lose two hydraulic systems and you lose control over those ailerons/things to which the system is connected; which means you have reduced flight control capacity. Yes, you can still turn the plane, but with much less control authority.

If the 320 has a robust system, why is it so hard to control when 2 of the 3 are lost? And why does this plane seem to lose 2 of the 3 systems at once during gear retraction? I guess you can argue that any landing you walk from is a good one, so the Airbus "redundancy" worked, but I wonder about the underlying design decisions which get this plane into that situation in the first place.

Not being typed on an AB of any kind, I don't know, but I think somebody here said they had redundancy and had a 3rd system as backup, but if what you are saying is correct, that is much different than other AC are set up and would explain all the hard to handle part of the story. It does look like that if that were the case, though, that heavy or not, he would want down quickly, rather than 4 hours of circling. Like I said in an earlier comment, WE WEREN'T THERE, and since there was no crash or injury, we have probably heard all we are going to hear.

the Green (#1) system is engine driven. The Yellow(#2) system is engine driven with an electrical pump backup. The Blue (#3)system is the backup. The blue and yellow back eachother up. Just like in other airplanes there is a PTU in case of pump failure. The loss of one pump is really no big deal (ask me how I know) but does require attention, especially if the othe system fails too. Really, other than being able to control the plane via cables, its designed like most hydraulic systems. The Blue system is segregated from the other 2, it powers all the stuff you need to land the plane. Some extra distance is required, but the plane is flyable.

Interesting though, Sully landed heavy.LOL. I think though, that AB has since revised their DITCHING Checklist that puts the vent closure and all at the top of the list. Might not have helped but we'll never know as they did not have the time to get to it.

We are sill seeing them out in the hinterlands as well. Not on billboards but Nat'l Geographic has show pic's of the landing 2-3 times. Saw one just last week. Personally, not near enough of Sully and what went on in the cockpit.

If you don't have a new York sectional to look at you can view one on this site. The GWB was the only bridge of consequence and it was easily cleared when he made the decision not to try for Teterboro. The Verazano never came in to play. It was miles down stream. Glad it wasn't me

737's, DC-9's and narrow body Airbus's have no need to have a fuel dump system installed, as their normal landing weight is usually below their max certified landing weight. During the fuel crisis of the 70's the EPA 'outlawed' fuel dumping as they considered it an environmental hazard to dump fuel over land, plus there is very, very few times the system is needed and is an added expense to the design and building of the airplane. The heavier aircraft....747's, 767's, A330/340 and the like have a dump system as it is for engine out emergency climb perfomance. That is the main reason a fuel dump system is installed on an aircraft.

My question is this: Why are the Airbus built aircraft not designed with the ability to dump fuel? I understand that the landing gear and it's corresponding airframe structure is engineered to withstand tremendous forces, but why risk collapsing the landing gear and skidding off the runway, or setting fire to the brakes due to an overweight landing, thus creating more of an explosion risk in the event of a legit emergency landing? Boeing > Airbus.

None of the smaller ones are, Boeing or Airbus. Go to Google"Aircraft maximum landing weight" and then do Wiki. It gives the whole explanation, but in a nutshell, fuel dumping is primarily for engine loss and performance therafter and is based on a ratio of MTOW and MLW and then it was changed later on based on aircraft performance; has nothing to do with the brand.

A318, 319,320, B737 all updates and most other smaller aircraft don't have fuel dump capability according to other posts here. There is a lot of knowledge on this site. Some of them know even more that I do. :-) Read all the comments and I guarantee you'll come away knowing something new. Fuel dumping is frowned on by the EPA and all state Water Resource Administrations. Fuel lightering is for performance with engine out procedures not to lighten the aircraft in other situations.

I have been talking about the fly by wire and being tied to this without a cable backup... He was probably lucky to get it down. Glad no one got hurt. I am very surprised that the FAA bought off on not having a hard cable backup for flying this plane.

Paul's comment is VERY correct. Your's is not. See my comment below from 2 days ago in that there was/is an FAA rule covering it. Too long to explain here but google it and go to Wiki for the full explanation, BUT, that being said, most of that rule is tied to Aircraft performance rating & weights. Individual cases such as this fall in the lap of the PIC and are handled withing the spec's of any ruling. There must be something else there not being told that caused him to stay in Vegas & circle, as he was heading to New York and their HQ/Maintenance base anyway.

Some companies will allow the crew to discuss the problem with their maintenance folks. UAL232 did this. Alaska (California) also did this. They were in uncharted territory. Both crashed but had flight control problems. Other companies--mine--would not second guess the QRH and company manuals. QRH says land ASAP--you land, otherwise (especially if things go bad) you and crew will be explaining to the Chief Pilot and the FAA why you didn't. Preacher1, you have a good point there. We don't know the whole story. Having said that, I don't think proceeding to destination would be a wise choice--too far--too many variables. Vegas was a known. A landing was assured.

Well, you are correct in that although they recovered the yellow system and should have had full control, no telling when they would have lost it again. Like I said, there was something else there not being told. I was just kinda looking at PAUL YOUNG'S comment up above here and he has some good points to. It's got out of sequence here, but we all seem in agreement to bring it down. Most of my last 15-20 years were in a 757 and I would have went back to the ground, as there is not hardly any weight spread on them, and I was hardly ever near MTOW anyway. That 320 is uncharted territory for me but as you say, the QRF says bring it down.

Sooner or later someone in the FAA will see that AirBuses are not engineered well. The engines they have chosen are quite good, but the rest of the aircraft is poorly thought out. It seems that the "fly by wire" and glass panel concepts dazzled the certifiers and that major mechanical and aerodynamic flaws were overlooked. Who in their right mind would certify an aircraft that cannot land because of overweight issues. What? If there is an engine fire do you keep flying for 4 hours? I fly a lot for business and I avoid AirBus products like the plague and white knuckle if I have to fly one. Sometimes, it is a danger to one's self to know too much. If I were the FAA administrator, all models of AirBuses would be grounded, decertified, and required to meet the same engineering standards as Boeing.

The pilots have the option to do an overweight landing. The 737 and its siblings also can't dump fuel. Overweight landing inspections can be costly and time consuming. As for your contention that Airbus aircraft are not well engineered, that is just BS. All aircraft certified today meet or exceed the FAR requirements. There have been very few hull losses since the late eighties, early nineties. The losses that did occur were, for the most part, older aircraft. Aviation is a much safer enviroment that it was thirty years ago. And a hell of alot safer than when I first flew in 1949.

Art: I'm not an Airbus fan either, but it's not the fact that they can't land heavy; there is an inspection if they do and that would be so with others as well. As Mark stated earlier,there are a lot of smaller airliners that can't dump fuel. As far as the fly by wire, Boeing has been using it in part from the 777's up. May have even been a limited application before then. The 787, while having a yoke and all, is totally fly by wire, so I have been told. They kept the yoke for familiarity. One reason you hear more about Airbus today than in times past, that like it or not, they are making inroads into the U.S.market.

What disturbs me most in the Airbus design is that the side sticks do not operate together unless a switch is set by the PIC, the Airfrance crash in the Atlantic 2 years ago showed that one pilot was pulling and the other pushing while the plane stalled , both pilots were FO's and the captain was in his berth asleep.( this is a very short description because there was a whole route of Murphy's law enfolded)

Dolf, what disturbs me most is when people like you make comments completely unencumbered with actual facts about the aircraft, training, or procedures. Obviously you do not have an A320 type rating and have had no actual airline training. There is no such switch for the side stick operation and there is no need for one. As for the Air France flight it was a failure of basic airmanship which caused brought the aircraft down and not the design of the aircraft. It is people like you who make up or pass on bogus information which perpetuate the wrong impression that Airbus is unsafe.

regarding Airbus, I rather fly a boeing ,but that is personal, Boeing was making planes when Airbus Industries was not even born....basic airmanship cannot be taught with computer enhanced airplanes, that is my strong opinion. Put a pilot in a glider and see what he is made of flying by the seat of his pants and no engine.....

I think you should look at that track log again yourself. It's pretty clear that the second 7:09pm data point is faulty--the plane did not rise from 7400 ft to 33000ft (not to mention the airspeed was likely not zero) and then fall back to 8900 ft in the space of one minute. Aside from the extreme outlying data point, both the airspeed and altitude are very constant the whole flight. This supports the idea that it was not an emergency.

I'd say the fact that the captain thought he could control the plane well enough to burn off some fuel and then land, and then was proven correct so everybody's laughing about it now and armchair-captaining it in an online discussion thread supports the idea that it was not an emergency.

Well describe an emergency? Yes he was able to control the plane and it is safely on the ground. But a pilot can declare an emergency for something that he deems requires priority handling due to an imminent danger. Therefore, perfectly okay to consider it an emergency. Besides it covers his ass from any violations.

Well, he had to declare the Emergency to get the orbit position and handling, but I think that what Jack is saying that it wasn't near as big a deal as it was made out to be. They ran the checklist, recovered one of the systems, dumped the fuel and landed. 12,000' not some of the smoothest flying air around so it may have been a little ragged for the pax.lol

Good videos, captwright. Land ASAP. Pretty much sums it up. Heavyweight landing? No skin off my back. Give it back to maintenance and have a cup of coffee. Ever seen the videos of Boeing's crosswind certification of the 777? The gear can take a lot! We don't normally land that way and that's how the gear is certified to last X number of cycles--normal sink rate and weight. If you're over, it's a hard or overweight landing and inspection time.

Las Vegas, Edwards afb and other military bases in the area have very long runways could they have landed there?! Plane moving out of control and turbulence people sick? I wasn't there but I question JetBlue and the pilots decision.

@ Jack DeMarre: all your comments are right on, and as I said in one earlier, WE WEREN'T THERE.

@Fedex Cargo Pilot: you are kinda going along with the crowd here rather than looking at the facts. As a student, you should well know what is ahead of you to get your ATP. The PIC on this plane was an ATP so give the man the benefit of the doubt that he knew what he was doing. It is Nellis AFB there at Las Vegas, not Edwards. Edwards is out in California and he did land at Vegas. Dude's comment above and one of Jack's kinda puts it in a nutshell about PAX statements and then there is the sensationalism by the Daily Mail.

Giving the devil his due, the chief PAX spokesman in the story was saying on TWITTER and it was publishe in the story "The plane turned into a vomitorium" so he was either bad scared our it was a little rough at 12 grand, which would'nt be uncommon.

Tossing pax around for 4 hours burning excess fuel to meet a landing weight limit is over the top. If it can takeoff with that weight it can damn sure land with it obviously ensuring minimum sink at touchdown. An inspection and sign off is generally all that's required to return the machine to service. Manufacturer must have considered that when the fuel dump plumbing was left off to save weight. Adding this story to those already out there about this carrier won't help their bottom line. Hell in that length of time he could have continued to destination. I'm guessing rookie in the left seat. The FBW system coupled to hydraulic actuators is assumed to have been a contributing factor to the rough ride.

what the heck happens when the hydraulic leak is serious and becoming an emergency condition and the aircraft needs to land yesterday - they have to keep flying because they can't dump? How stupid is that?

You don't keep flying; you land heavy. You just got to pay attention to what you are doing. And that don't matter what brand you are flying. Most of your heavies have dump capability but that is primariliy for engine out and a few things. No fuel dump is just routine.